*From:* Yade-dev
on
behalf of Bruno Chareyre
*Sent:* June-07-16 2:55 AM
*To:* yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net
*Subject:* Re: [Yade-dev] [Branch ~yade-pkg/yade/git-trunk] Rev 3874:
fabricTensor(): unify the behavior regarding boundary interactions
whether split=0 or 1
In
s.launchpad.net>
on behalf of Bruno Chareyre
<mailto:bruno.chare...@grenoble-inp.fr>
Sent: June-07-16 2:55 AM
To: yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net<mailto:yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net>
Subject: Re: [Yade-dev] [Branch ~yade-pkg/yade/git-trunk] Rev 3874:
fabricTensor(): unify the behavior re
ject:* Re: [Yade-dev] [Branch ~yade-pkg/yade/git-trunk] Rev 3874:
fabricTensor(): unify the behavior regarding boundary interactions
whether split=0 or 1
In [1] it was a good move to remove the periodic barrier.
Filtering spheres is another independent question and I don't see a
clear reason fo
bricTensor(): unify the behavior regarding boundary interactions whether
split=0 or 1
In [1] it was a good move to remove the periodic barrier.
Filtering spheres is another independent question and I don't see a clear
reason for that (testing isDynamic was maybe a bit hacky but less restr
In [1] it was a good move to remove the periodic barrier.
Filtering spheres is another independent question and I don't see a
clear reason for that (testing isDynamic was maybe a bit hacky but less
restrictive finally).
Making split=0 and split=1 return the same thing [2] sounds good, but
the p
I'm replying to
http://www.mail-archive.com/yade-dev@lists.launchpad.net/msg11970.html (sorry
to break the thread, but there has been a major email shutdown at my university
last week, and I just discover now this message, browsing the archives)
So, in fact I started to introduce such kind of
On 05/27/2016 05:22 AM, nore...@launchpad.net wrote:
revno: 3874
committer: jduriez
=== modified file 'pkg/dem/Shop_02.cpp'
+ if( !dynamic_cast(Body::byId(I->getId1(),scene)->shape.get()) ||
!dynamic_cast(Body::byId(
7 matches
Mail list logo
